Mother, nephew acquitted in 13-year-old girl’s burnt-body murder case after Karnataka High Court finds evidence chain incomplete

The prosecution alleged that the appellants—Accused Nos. 1 and 2—conspired to murder Accused No. 2’s minor daughter after Accused No. 1 allegedly sexually assaulted and impregnated her.

The victim’s pregnancy was terminated pursuant to an order of the High Court, and the fetus was preserved for DNA testing.

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 2 took the victim from her hostel on 23 June 2018, after which both appellants transported and killed her, and Accused No. 1 later burned her body to destroy evidence.

The Sessions Court convicted both appellants under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Accused No. 1 under Section 201 read with Section 34; it acquitted Accused No. 1 of the POCSO charge and Accused No. 3 of the Section 201 charge.

The appellants appealed, challenging their convictions.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was homicidal.

2. Whether the evidence, including the alleged “last seen” circumstance, established a complete chain connecting the appellants to the murder and related offences.

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal and, where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the accused’s guilt.

The “last seen” circumstance, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction; Section 106 of the Evidence Act may require an explanation from an accused only when the prosecution has first established circumstances that support the inference of guilt.

The Court considered Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Surajdeo Matho v. State of Bihar on the qualified use of the last-seen theory and the accused’s duty to explain, and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715, on the insufficiency of last-seen evidence by itself.

The charges arose under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The medical evidence did not establish the cause of death: the post-mortem report stated that an opinion could not be given because the body was burnt, and the doctor’s estimate of the time of death did not fix it with sufficient certainty.

Although the victim’s mother took her from the hostel, the evidence did not show that Accused No. 1 was with them at that point, and the witnesses said to link the appellants to the subsequent journey or events did not support the prosecution.

The Court also noted the absence of incriminating recoveries linking the appellants to the crime and the lack of proof of the alleged motive; the DNA material relied on by the defence matched the fetus with Abhishek, against whom a separate rape case had been registered.

Consequently, the last-seen circumstance and the appellants’ lack of explanation could not fill the gaps in the prosecution’s case or establish a complete chain of guilt.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Accused No. 1 under Section 201 read with Section 34, and acquitted the appellants of the charged offences.

They were directed to be released if not required in another case.